Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/15/1981 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, January 15, 1981 7:30 P.M. City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Krueger, Vice-Chairman, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Richard Lynch MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wedlund, Chairman STAFF PRESENT: Carl Jullie, P.E. Director of Public Works Sharon Gagnon, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 1 . Minutes of November 20, 1980, regular meeting. MOTION: Dickey moved, Sandvick seconded, the November 20, 1980, regular meeting. Lynch abstained; motion carried. 2. Minutes of December 18, 1980, regular meeting. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 18, 1980. Sandvick abstained; motion carried. i 3. Continuance of Variance Request #80-43 thru 51 submitted by Countryside Investments for Sunset Trails. ;lifton Swenson and Arvid Schwartz from Countryside Investments, Inc. were present for the meeting. No residents were present. Schwartz; explained that the area involved is located along Duck Lake Rd. The tract' is approximately 20 acres with a fair amount of low land. A portion of this land is being deeded to the City as park land and the remaining will be 18 lots. The houses placed on the western edge of the project that back up to the park are the homes for which they are requesting the 25' front setback instead of the 30' required. This area has less favorable soil conditions than across the street. The amount of bad soil that would have to be pulled out and good soil brought in is increased dramatically going back the 5' . The soil pulled out must be spread in the other area that is acceptable to both the City and the Water- shed District. The more soil that is spread, the more the wild life and vegetation is covered up and moved around. He suggested a uniform variance for these lots of 25' . He also noted that the purchasers will be informed of the variance and the conditions of the soil tests. Some of the lots have been sold and will be built upon in the spring. Krueger asked if they were going to build the homes and if they will guarantee the soil . Schwartz said they were not builders and would remove the bad soil where the setback is and furnish a diagram of the compacted soil and furnish them with a report on the condition of the soils and guarantee this. Krueger asked how deep this bad soil is. Bd. of Appls & Adj. -2- January ;15,1981 • Schwartz replied the worst lot in terms of the bad soil is 20+ feet. There have been extensive borings but did not bring in the results. Krueger asked if the street was in line with the good soil . Schwartz replied that-generally that was true. Krueger asked Jullie for his opinion. Jullie said he had talked to RCM who designed the streets and utilities in this area and found they said it was possible to build on the lots without a variance, however, there is such a steep inclination and with the fact that the soils are bad that 5' would make a substantial difference. They also pointed out the fact that it would be less encroachment into the marsh area which was a concern with the neighbors to the south when this project went through the Planning Commission. Dickey asked if there was justification to be concerned with the type of home to be put on these lots that may cause a need for another variance in the future. - Swenson felt there would not be any need but the homes should be single story. Dickey asked if the lots were sold to realtors or to builders. Swenson said they had been sold to individuals. • Krueger asked the price of the lots. Swenson replied the average was $25,000.00. Sandvick asked which lots were the major concern. Schwartz replied that lots 2,3,4 were the worst. Sandvick asked ff the variance was not granted if this would affect the price of the lots. Swenson said it would affect the potential buyer by approximately 10% more ($1500 - $2500. ) Sandvick questioned if the new buyers for the lots have been notified of this meeting-by the mailing and their names. Schwartz said he was not aware of this but they were informed of the meeting. Mr. Schwartz owns Lot 1 and Husby is the other owner. Dickey asked Jullie that after the owners start digging will the City have an engineer watch over this situation. Jullie replied that the Building Department will check over the compaction • tests and if necessary require a soil boring test. MOTION: Krueger moved to approve, seconded by Dickey, that if the variance was not granted it would cause undue financial hardship on the people purchasing the lots. Five feet is not a great percentage. This granting Bd. of Appls & Adj -3- Jan. 15,1981 • would help the problems involved with the encroachment into the marsh and the park. This will not harm the welfare of the residents of Eden Prairie. Sandvick added that the buyers of the lots needing the variance were not on the mailing list but were informed of the meeting. The motion and addition passed unanimously. DISCUSSION: Sandvick questioned the technicality of the one year expiration date of the granting of a variance request. His concern was that building permits must be applied for before the one year period. Jullie responded that their intention was to correct the soils on all of them as far as a mass grading operation so in effect, they will have acted upon the terms of this variance. Sandvick said there isn' t construction by definition of a home but construction is part of the preparation for the task. Lynch felt there could be a problem in the future when lawyers are preparing the deeds. Sandvick noted that if a variance should have to be renewed at some time in the future, Countryside Investments, Inc. would have to bear the expense, not the potential buyer. • 4. Variance Request #81-1 submitted by Hustad Developement Corporation for a deck located at 9391 Creekwood Dr. to allow a deck 4' from the property line. Steve Williams represented Hustad Development. Krueger asked if the deck was already built. Williams replied positive. Dickey asked if the house had been sold. Williams said technically no; there was a renter in it. They have kept the house with their own mortgage on it. Dickey asked if this was a builders mistake. Williams replied no that they had planned it that way. The topography of the lot made it very difficult to build on. He felt that a totally different configuration of a home should have been built but choose a side split because of the salability rather than a tuck under. There was a 4' grade by the side so they needed a deck. Dickey asked if the renter had put the deck on. Hustad built the deck. • Krueger asked if the deck was on the original house plans. Williams replied no. Bd. ' of Appls & Adj -4 Jan. 15,1981 Dickey noted that if this was done by an owner he would have empathy for encroaching on a side yard setback but had no sympathy with a builder. Krueger said he shared those feelings. Lynch said it was not the way to do business. Williams said it was a combination of problems between the draftsmen, carpenters and foreman on the job. Dickey asked what alternatives would they use if the variance was not granted. Williams said they would remove the deck and screw the sliding door shut. It would not be feasible to build a 3' deck. Lynch quoted Mr. Johnson's memo regarding the building plans. Dickey asked the market value of the home. Williams replied $150,000.00 MOTION: Sandvick moved to deny, seconded by Lynch, because of the great encroachment of the side yard setback . This represents approximately a 40% request and is quite unusual . After reviewing Mr. Johnson's report they would have to agree. Motion carried unanimously. Williams said he would take the deck off even though he doesn't agree with • the decision. 5. Other Business. The Board discussed some df the problems concerning the Hidden Ponds project. 6. Adjournment. MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Sandvick, to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.